“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—- “I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

—

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

—

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

– The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

– When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

– Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

– Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

– Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something”

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

“I’ve noticed something about people who make a difference in the world: They hold the unshakable conviction that individuals are extremely important, that every life matters.

They get excited over one smile.

They are willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.

They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes. Over time, though, the small changes add up. Sometimes they even transform cities and nations, and yes, the world.”

=

Beth Clar

——

This is about responding.

First. What does RSVP mean? In the context of social invitations RSVP is a request for a response from the invited person or people. It is derived from the French phrase répondez s’il vous plaît, meaning ‘please respond’ <”respond if you please”>.

Sticking with the formal aspect of an RSVP … there are some guidelines.

———

If RSVP is written on an invitation it means the invited guest must tell the host whether or not they plan to attend the party. It does not mean to respond only if you’re coming, and it does not mean respond only if you’re not coming (the expression “regrets only” is reserved for that instance). It means the host needs to know who is going to attend, get a definite head count, the planned event … and needs it by the date specified on the invitation.

———–

Second. RSVP also has to do with Life, not just parties.

Think about it. Life, in many ways, says ‘please respond.’ My fear, and belief, is that many of us simply haven’t read the rules of etiquette and do not respond.

Look. I often write about how Life is difficult and how Life is tricky and how Life has a warped sense of humor.

But. Life can also be quite respectful and act with true etiquette and grace. I don’t mean big pomp and circumstance moments, but little moments in which doing the little things well matters. Uhm. Like an rsvp for example.

—–

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad. For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

—–

I sometimes worry people no longer understand what RSVP means. In social event scenarios as well as Life.

Assuming the best, and that the reason guests don’t RSVP to an invitation is a case of ignorance, not rudeness, let me suggest this.

People have a tendency to not respond because … well … it is safer.

Less chance of conflict. And it may seem like the easiest path but think about it from this quote’s perspective.

—–

“Every time we choose safety, we reinforce fear.”

Cheri Huber

—

Sure. I could simply believe most people don’t get involved with Life because they are too busy.

Or they are ignorant of the fact their absence is not noted or meaningful.

But I can’t. I can’t because I don’t believe it is true.

I think we do it, subconsciously or consciously, because it is safer — we get to avoid possible conflict.

Oh. The risk in doing this over & over & over? We become disengaged with Life.

But. Here is the good news. Life will keep sending you invitations. Over & over & over again.

You just gotta RSVP every once in a while.

To be clear. You are not always being invited to a ‘big party.’ Sometimes the RSVP is just for something small.

Saying that permits me to circle back to where I began … willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound. They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes.

Over time, though, the small changes add up.

That’s why you RSVP to life.

Small changes add up.

Small moments add up.

Small gestures add up.

It is true that Life, in general, is indifferent to you and what you want. However. What Life does do is create event after event which you DO get invited to. That means its up to you to respond. And, yeah, I do believe RSVPing matters even in this scenario. Just showing up is good but not as good as telling Life you are gonna show up. Why? Because it increases the odds Life may actually NOT be indifferent when you show up.

“Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.”

―

Voltaire

====================

Losing is part of Life. And, if you are a business troublemaker, you almost have to get used to losing because if you are worth half a shit as a troublemaker you will most likely reside in an 80/20 world. 80% of the trouble you make won’t give you any satisfaction if you are seeking a ‘win. So the 20% wins need to be enjoyed.

Now.

I will point out that all that losing doesn’t make you a loser, but that’s not my point today. My main point is that troublemaker ideas create some fairly intense feelings.

Oddly, and maybe incorrectly, I’m going to lean in on Maslow to discuss this. Maslow’s original formulation identified five levels (three more, including curiosity or exploration, aesthetics, and religion were added later.)

The first level comprised biological needs – such as food, shelter, warmth, sex, and sleep.

The second focused on ‘safety’: protection from the environment, law and order, stability, and security.

The third level concerned ‘love and belonging’, including friendship, acceptance, love, and being part of a group – not only family, but also at work.

Fourth were the needs for ‘esteem’. These included both self-esteem (dignity, achievement, independence) and respect from others (status, prestige).

Fifth was ‘self-actualization’ needs covered self-fulfillment, personal growth, and particularly intense, ‘peak’ experiences. To flourish, the top level of self-actualization must be reached.

I share this because flourish and losing seems like it creates a fairly visceral intense reaction.

This makes me share two thoughts:

Investing in big loss opportunities.

Go big or go home comes to mind. If you are a troublemaker you will absolutely invest energy in small wins and losses. Let’s call those ‘nudge opportunities.’ But your Maslow self will be defined by the big wins and losses. If you want to survive. you have to get good at 2 things:

Not investing intense energy on small things. in other words, you only have so much to give and you cannot give it away all the time. Contrary to much popular advice, sometimes ‘just enough’ is essential to success.

Effectively discerning the big things. it may be obvious, but at the onset little things can look like big things and big things can look like little things. Your survival as a troublemaker may balance on how well you can discern the difference between the two.

Choose wisely.

Embracing big losses gracefully.

Once you decide to go big or go home your personal intensity naturally increases. You are vested and invested in the idea or thinking. Most times at this stage you never think about losing, only winning. Not in ruthlessly competing but rather in “I cannot envision how anyone could ever not see the benefits of this.” Losing, therefore, becomes either a failure in them (they couldn’t see it) or a failure in you (what did I do wrong). Failing is the worst version of losing. How you lose often defines who you are.

Act wisely.

Anyway.

Hugh McLeod

I began with Maslow to emphasize how challenging both of these things are. The higher you go up on the Maslow pyramid the more personal it gets. That means the importance of gains & losses increase in importance. Which brings me back to my opening 80/20 breakdown. Even the best of the best troublemakers only win 20% of the time.

So.

All I really know is you better learn how to lose well or everyone will think you are an asshole. And, before you dismiss that thought as “who cares, I am a troublemaker”, in the real world troublemakers are dependent upon (a) being in positions & places in which they can make trouble and (b) other people to actually bring the ideas & thinking to life. If you are an asshole, no place will want you and no people will want to have anything to do with any of your ideas and thinking.

a feeling of being nervous that you experience before something important happens:

I always get the jitters the morning before an exam.

=====

“I like to compare the holiday season with the way a child listens to a favorite story. The pleasure is in the familiar way the story begins, the anticipation of familiar turns it takes, the familiar moments of suspense, and the familiar climax and ending.“

—-

Fred Rogers

=========

Christmas Eve and pre-Christmas jitters.

This is different than anticipation or expectations or … well … anything but the … uhm … jitters.

Ok.

Why jitters?

It all revolves around receiving and giving. And this changes as we get older.

In youth the jitters revolve around the receiving.

As we age the jitters shift to giving.

And while years come and go … the jitters stay year in and year out. And maybe that is what makes this version of jitters a little unique.

Experience doesn’t matter.

No matter how many Christmases you have endured, enjoyed or embraced … no matter how familiar the ritual becomes and how consistent the day & event unfolds … none seem to ever change the ‘jitter’ aspect.

Now. I can’t speak to the receiving jitters anymore because I have left youth far behind.

But as for the giving?

Well. You don’t even have to invested gobs of time pondering the perfect gift nor does it matter that you know what someone wants … the moment before the moment … creates … well … at least a moment of jitters.

Despite the fact most of us know we suck at giving gifts … we want to get it right. We want to maybe not hit the nail on the head gift wise … but we at least want to not be so far off base that … well … we disappoint on the one day of the year where you think disappointment just shouldn’t show up.

Look.

I like reading how many people write about Christmas.

I like reading how many people seem to reach into the true spirit of Christmas and reflect upon the goods & the bads <but, most typically, the goods>.

I like reading how many people enjoy the glitz & glitter & trappings and, yet, for the most part enjoy the underpinnings and the ‘invisible’ or ‘less than visible’ things that truly make up Christmas.

And maybe it is that last point why so many of us have pre-Christmas jitters. For one moment … the moment a gift is picked up, shaken, and opened … you are quite possibly more visible than you have ever been … and even more visible than any glitz & glitter & trappings surrounding you.

Its not that most of us want to be invisible, but being starkly visible — whether we are ready or not or want it or not — can be a little daunting.

Hence the jitters.

In the end.

Gifts don’t really matter.

Shit. We all pretty much know that. Even bad gifts given with good intentions are good gifts.

And we all pretty much know that Christmas is more found in the hearts & souls of all < yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus> rather than in some poorly wrapped, are impeccably wrapped, gift.

But all that said.

Pre-Christmas jitters.

I assume 99% of us have them. Even with all that I shared with regard to what I tend to believe all of us know about Christmas.

And you know what?

The jitters are part and parcel to a good Christmas day.

Why?

It shows you care.

You care about Christmas and you care that someone cares about what you have given.

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

—–

Arturo Perez Revarte

==============

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & affect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No. The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and … well … more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

Ah.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide … my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>. Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. Or someone weaves a great narrative to destroy but forgets to offer an alternative.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. in one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees … it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because that said … it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is President Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

Life is restless.

Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines.

“I think as you grow older your Christmas list gets smaller and the things you really want for the holidays can’t be bought.”

=

(via hefuckin)

—–

Whew.

It’s scary how true this quote is.

Christmas sometimes seems simpler when thinking about the past. But it most likely wasn’t. It is just when young your list was long … of things you wanted … and the list was … well … a clear cut black & white list.

Today? Beyond the fact an ‘adult list’ is shorter … it sometimes seems like Christmas has descended into a trashy, crass, excessive, shallow <or hollow>, lighted plastic capitalistic driven spectacle. From a broader perspective Christmas has become a ‘retail event’ from which a lot of people step back from the joy of giving and assess the economy <not happiness>.

Yet. From a purely economic perspective Christmas spending is an inefficient way to drive growth. In 1993 an economist named Joel Waldfogel described what he called the “deadweight loss of Christmas” which is the concept of the fact that everybody pays too much for what nobody wants.

Anyway. But when you get past all that crap … you see lots of the things you really want for the holidays which can’t be bought. The raw, non corporate branded, humane, caring and kind things.

————–

Dorey Walker:I don’t think that there’s any harm in not believing in a figure that many do acknowledge to be a fiction.

Kris Kringle:Oh, but there is. I’m not just a whimsical figure who wears a charming suit and affects a jolly demeanor. You know, I… I… I’m a symbol. I’m a symbol of the human ability to be able to suppress the selfish and hateful tendencies that rule the major part of our lives. If… you can’t believe, if you can’t accept anything on faith, then you’re doomed for a life dominated by doubt.”

Miracle on 34th Street – 1947

—————

Let’s call them ‘the little big things.’

I reflect on this thought knowing that gifts have never mattered to me even when I was really young. But that doesn’t mean I ‘got’ Christmas. I imagine, at my best, it was just an event where you were able to develop thoughtful lists which expressed something beyond simply ‘giving a gift.’ This elevated me above Scrooge status … but never really elevated me to an ‘understanding what Christmas was really all about’ status.

Today?

Well. As usual. I am a work in progress. But I do see my list shrinking and I seem to get closer to one thing. One idea. Hope.

I think many people may treat the event & time as a gift giving occasion or a time to gather or even a time to reflect … but I am beginning to think Christmas offers a glimmer of ‘what could be’ more than anything else. Sometimes it may simply be a small glimmer but it is …well … a glimmer.

A small piece of hope for the future.

A small spotlight on when hope appeared in the past year or so.

And while context matters, in that whatever is happening in the world around us, I tend to think regardless of the context as we get older our lists get smaller because we get closer to the one thing that really matters. This also means that the closer you get to that one thing the less important all the other things become.

Oh. I also began to realize that if I am only to give one gift to the people I know it is to insure they see Hope even if it is for but one minute. This is not to suggest I believe I can make anyone actually believe in Hope.

You cannot.

However, I do believe you can show that Hope is there … possible … and attainable <in some form or fashion>.

It can be found in taking one minute to show a young employee that the best version of whatever they can be is attainable.

It can be found in taking one minute to tell a good friend that the dark<er> bridge they are walking on does have an end <and there is good solid ground with some grass & trees on it to stand on>.

It can be found in taking one minute to hand that homeless person you have seen for the last 11 months standing there at the corner a $10 bill instead of a $1 bill <and say ‘I hope it gets better’ … uhm … when do you think is the last time they have heard a stranger say they have hope for them??>.

None of those things have really cost me a thing, and I have given one little gift that I doubt was on their list of ‘what I want this Christmas.’

It’s a small thing … but believing in Santa Claus is important. It creates a smallish type hope that good resides and visits everyone. And, yes, the best example of this is “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” And, yet, there continue to be millions who not only doubt Santa Claus … they deny his existence. They are called Santa deniers <and it is called Santa Denial>.

Silly people.

I say that because a writer recently took on Santa denial quite well. And this writer offers us a great reminder why we should believe in Santa Claus:

=

Addressing Santa Denial:

Santa-denial has existed for far too long and I cannot understand how Santa deniers are allowed to promote their views. Why are these people tolerated in today’s modern media? Science has long shown that Santa Claus is real, and those who claim otherwise are invariably in the pocket of the big toy companies, who don’t want people thinking they can get free playthings and so will pay for their products.

But the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the Santa deniers have been repeatedly debunked. But, just to refresh your memory, here are some of the more typical ones and why they’re wrong:

===

If Santa has a workshop at the north pole, why has nobody ever seen it?

Santa’s workshop is located in a very snowy region that very few people can access, so it’s unlikely that many people would get to see it. It would theoretically be possible to view it from above, via an aircraft or satellite in a polar orbit, but what would Santa’s workshop look like from this perspective? A snow-covered building on a background of ice and snow? That’s basically just blank whiteness. And infrared scans can be tricky with snow. It’s a fallacy to assume that something isn’t there because you haven’t seen it. You can’t see oxygen either, but try denying that it exists and see how far you get.

=

How can a human survive prolonged periods in sub-zero conditions?

Santa has several features and properties clearly adapted for cold weather survival. His large girth and dense beard and hair are obviously meant for insulation, in the manner of polar bears. Of course, enduring below-freezing temperatures for months on end requires a lot of calories for a warm-blooded mammal, hence Santa needs to get through millions of mince pies and glasses of milk in one evening; he’s building up resources for another frosty year.

=

How is it possible for a sleigh with millions of toys in it, pulled by reindeer, to fly?

Admittedly, the whole “flying reindeer” thing does seem very far-fetched, and this is a fair accusation. Investigations suggest that the flying reindeer image is a distortion of the truth, in that reindeer are native to the Arctic so Santa may well keep reindeer on his premises and perhaps they did pull his sleigh originally. But there is substantial evidence now to suggest that Santa powers his sled with the energy obtained from a precisely controlled quantum singularity.

Basically, Santa has access to a small black hole, which he uses to perform his duties. It’s likely that a miniature black hole struck Earth at some point in the past (don’t worry, this wouldn’t have been as disastrous as many think). Some argue that it came down in the arctic regions, hence its discoverer (Santa Claus) built his workshop on top of it. A black hole singularity can provide a lot of power, so this is the most likely explanation for the energy consumption of a busy workshop.

Once a year, Santa fits the singularity to his vehicle and uses it to travel the world. Black holes have exotic properties that allow them to distort space and gravity, so traveling with millions of toys in a confined space won’t be as impractical as it would be under normal spacetime rules.

=

It’s impossible to visit every child on Earth in a single night!

You’d think so, but remember the singularity mentioned above? They distort time too. The time period might feel like months for Santa in his own personal gravity well, but it’s mere minutes to anyone observing from the outside.

So, regardless, How can Santa keep track of every child being naughty or nice? As uncomfortable to realize as it may be, Santa’s approach hasn’t always been the most rational. It is traditional for every child to send Santa a gift list they have written themselves, so in the old days Santa was able to use the questionable science of handwriting analysis to determine who had less-than-pleasant personality traits (along with some educated guesswork based on the list itself; a child who asks for live scorpions or chainsaws is likely to have suspect motivations).

However, with the arrival of the internet and surveillance culture, it’s relatively easy to keep track of everyone. Especially if you’re a powerful industrialist like Santa.

=====

Why does Santa deliver toys and items with the branding of corporations?

Outsourcing!

Duh.

Plus, most children these days ask for specific items made by corporations, who jealously protect their copyrights by legal means. So either Santa sources the toy from the original makers, or the child goes without.

Is that what you want, Santa deniers? Children waking up empty-handed on Christmas morning? Despicable!

===

Why are there so many Santas in shops and grottos?

Those aren’t all Santa. They’re men in costumes. How gullible are you?

===

<note: If you still deny there is someone called Santa Claus … well … you have no soul>

“But every once in a while, you find someone who’s iridescent, and when you do, nothing will ever compare.”

–

Wendelin Van Draanen

============

“We have plenty of room for people … in our lives, I mean.

Especially the ones who make us be the people we want to be.”

—

Suzanne LaFleur

=========

As we near Christmas I want to take a moment and talk about iridescent people.

Iridescent people? Well. I tend to believe 99% of us have a ‘special person.’ A go-to person.

That person when we get in a hole they climb in and get us out — whether it be a pot hole, sink hole, shallow hole or deep dark hole.

These are your own personal iridescent ones. The ones that are not part of your family. They are the special people you come across in Life.

Now. You know they are your go-to people, but you also know they also have lives. And, on occasion, they have their own shit and whether they want to be there for you … they just cannot.

And maybe that is, at least partially, why Christmas can be so special. Santa Claus is a go-to, iridescent, always there person. It does not matter what is happening in the world. It doesn’t matter what is happening in his life. It doesn’t matter whether you think you need him or not … he just shows up.

He may not bring a tangible gift.

But he always offers an intangible gift.

——–

“Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to. Don’t you see? It’s not just Kris that’s on trial, it’s everything he stands for. It’s kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles.”

Miracle on 34th Street

——

Why does this matter? Well. At least on one day every year you know you can count on someone regardless of everything else happening. That is kind of special if you think about it.

Santa Claus is an extraordinary iridescent person because he is yours, shared with everyone else, and, yet, he delivers year in and year out on one day of the year.

Look. We all know people in flat … the person you always see in the parking lot at the office building who nods but you have no clue who they are … or the guys who pick up the garbage every Monday morning.

Most likely good people, not really ‘flat’ if you knew them, but they simply fill up part of the photo wall in the mosaic of your world.

We all know people in satin … people who link in with you on LinkedIn who you went to high school with but haven’t seen or spoken to since or the people in the gym who say good morning to you, but nothing more.

We know the people in gloss … the coworker who helps pick up the sack unasked, the neighbor who brings over leftovers rather than throw them out and the kind bagger at the local grocery store who always goes out of their way to stop and say hello.

We all know these people. They make up the mosaic of people who make up our lives.

And maybe that is what makes iridescent people so … well … special. They do not dominate the mosaic nor do they make up the whole. They just seem to be able to step in and step out and enhance the entire mosaic … and you.

I am not sure if they offer some little gift of hope every time they brush against us or if it is simply they take whatever is dark, and it doesn’t have to be dark as a hole but rather some sliver of disappointment, worry or angst, and offer just enough light to dispel that sliver of darkness.

I am not sure … but it seems like they make us ‘gooder’, if but for a moment, because they are there.

=====

“I’m never as good as when you’re there.”

Russell Hammond

======

Anyway.

We all know things don’t always go exactly the way you want.

We all know we are not entitled to anything just for existing.

We all know that what you earn in life equals exactly what you put into it.

But we all know it helps to have a go to person who can show up when it counts.

Who would have thought a fat old white man in a suit that looks like it was made from a red corduroy couch you would have found in a 70’s furniture store would be a prime example of a go to iridescent person?

I imagine my point is … well … several points.

Iridescent can come in any shape, size or form.

Iridescent can come in a tale, dream or truth.

Iridescent is most often defined not by anything really tangible but by the intangible gifts you receive.

Iridescent … well … iridescent may actually be judged not in the moment but in reflection … when everything becomes dust and ashes … the iridescent will endure.

Yikes.

That’s Santa Claus, isn’t it?

Have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the one iridescent person we all share.

==============

“Things need not have happened to be true.

Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot.”

“… if you look beyond the tumult of sensational headlines and well-publicized atrocities, there’s a quiet trend of improvement throughout the world.

But although it’s sometimes drowned out by the drumbeat of fear-mongering, the progress that gives rise to hope is real and ongoing.

———

Adam Lee

====

As we near another Christmas I don’t know if it is because I associate hope and hopefulness with Christmas or that I tend to pay attention more to the good things happening in the world (the sometimes unnoticed small steps of progress) than I do the bombastic voices of ‘everything is bad’, but despite all the noisy shitshow stuff happening, I do believe there is a quiet trend of improvement happening before our eyes.

I say that recognizing it is tough to be optimistic these days. And I don’t mean because of what is actually happening in today’s world, but rather because if you are optimistic you run the significant risk of being trampled by a herd of cynicism, pessimism and those unwilling to believe the future can be better than the past. But I believe the bigger challenge we face is a general reluctance to believe people can change or should be forgiven.

There is a quiet voice of positive being overwhelmed by a loud voice of ‘nothing can be good’

I mention this because I just reread an old Pope Francis Christmas homily. It was positive, hopeful, instructive and a request that we look beyond decadence and selfishness in order to raise all of human kind to a better place.

It is the kind of message you would hope a religious leader would give.

And then I made the naïve mistake of scanning the comments underneath the article <in several papers>. An overwhelming amount of comments were … well … negative.

Either they:

<a> suggested the message was misguided <somehow some people saw it as anti-capitalism>,

<b> suggested the Pope was a hypocrite <because he represents a church with millions in assets>,

<c> the church had no basis to offer hope because of past transgressions or

<d> religion is bad and therefore what religious people say is simply fantasy <even if it is a good message>.

It is like people were seeking reason to not accept the positive message.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church and its history is strewn with moments of sin. And, yet, the Church has a Pope who not only accepts it, but is trying own its history. Should we judge an organization by the moments of transgression & sin <albeit they can be heinous transgressions on occasion> or by the true intent & soul of the organization … and its voice for the future? That is a big question with an answer bigger than I can offer.

That said. I find it disheartening that we cannot accept positiveness and hope without trying to burden it with cynicism or pessimism.

Good is good.

Hope is hope.

We shouldn’t discredit the words or the thoughts as we seek to diminish the bearers of the words & thoughts. Maybe we should seek to find the good in what someone says rather than find reasons to point out why the words are flawed or the deliverer is some insincere fraud.

This leads me to the bearers of the words & thoughts.

– Changing to do something good is being slowed by people who suggest someone cannot change.

====

“People tell you who they are, but we ignore it because we want them to be who we want them to be.”

Mad Men

====

Well. Surely … doing good today doesn’t absolve you from something you did bad yesterday. And, yet, I could argue those who have made bad mistakes in the past, and recognize them as bad, are most likely the most qualified to lead today.

I scan the headlines of the papers and there are a shitload of flawed people saying a bunch of smart, positive, hopeful things.

I scan the headlines of the papers and I see article after article diminishing the people who are saying these things by pointing out past transgressions or their ‘lack of consistency’ with regard to their beliefs <so why should we believe their positive thoughts>.

Smart flawed people, who maybe had flawed ideas in the past, are often smart enough to realize they need to change or make changes.

I would like to point out that the difficulty seems to arise not in the person who has changed but in those around the changer. While the best of the best changers seek to build the new, ignoring the old, we the people, continuously fight back with the old.

Can someone actually leave the old baggage behind and move on to do better things? <a question we should all be asking ourselves in today’s world>.

We seem hell bent on not letting people even try to change.

I would like to remind people of several things:

Andrew Carnegie, whose Pinkerton men shot down workers at the Homestead strike in Pittsburgh, also left the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an international network of public libraries.

John D Rockefeller, whose use of troops against Colorado mineworkers led to scores of deaths, including of women and children, created his foundation, so creative for young people worldwide.

Alfred Nobel, arms manufacturer and “marchand de mort extraordinaire”, set up his peace prize.

Regardless. I fully understand why some people want to hold on to the ‘better days of the past’ and nostalgically wish we could go back to many of what are perceived as ‘better ways of doing things.’

It is natural and, honestly, comforting. But I don’t understand why we far too often hold on to the ‘bad things from the past’ and constantly burden good people who, sincerely, want to show change and offer a better version of themselves with the intent to create a better version of the world.

Far too many people today do not see much to be upbeat about. They simply see a lot of existing problems getting worse. And because of that they are tending to gather around anyone promising a return to an imaginary past era of greatness.

Some of the best leaders today are those who were in the past, and in the past flawed, and now are new versions of themselves and do not want to return t some past but try and create a new future.

People change.

We should allow them to change.

Especially if they are one of the valuable few who see the good and hopeful and optimistic in the world. For they are the ones capable of showing us light when dark can appear to be winning.

“I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

—–

alexei panshin

============

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

–

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

This is about business and also about “the post-Christmas let down”.

What this all has in common is what someone once called “happiness hangovers.”I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after Christmas.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes off … every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> … and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and when the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body rebalances itself. The dopamine high goes from high … to low. Then finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained.

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something … and it concludes satisfactorily … we rise to a high. Our happiness meter is 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space , which happiness used to hang out in, with … doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminished the true happiness and high.

So this year when you sit back with the realization that Christmas is over just take a moment and think about how you (and all of us) deal with the happiness hangover.

The aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can.

Christmas?

Leave the tree up.

Leave the lights up.

Maybe still play the music.

Business?

Retell the highlight moments.

Replay portions in meetings.

Gather to relive aspects.

As mentioned upfront in this piece, we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions.

We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should.

And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body & minds with the trappings of “what was” (or, worse, try and make up for how expectations where not met).

We all do it.

And most of us do it unconsciously.

Is it really bad for us to do it?

Well. Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence … but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>

……………….. Christmas is over …….

Well.

All that said.

The day after Christmas, Christmas is done, but still not completely gone. And just as we do with big work events … we are dealing with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and psychological reasons behind we are so silly.

Salesmen, secretaries, coal miners, beekeepers, sword swallowers, all of us. All the restless hearts of the world, all trying to find a way home.”

—–

Patch Adams

====================

Well. I had all these quotes and I didn’t know what to do with them until I saw the image at the opening of this post: “They say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I’m not leaving maybe I’m going home.”

I have often wondered why many of us are so restless. We seek things, and travel places looking for ‘something’ and dream dreams. This doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy what we have nor does it mean we don’t accept reality. It just means that there is always an undercurrent of change or “what ifs” or “what could be’s” underneath the surface of our Life. At the same time we are sailing through Life seeking some place we can land which we can not only call home, but actually feels like home.

And maybe that is where the line “home is where you hang your hat’ comes into play. In its simplicity it is actually suggesting that it really isn’t your hat that matters it is when you accept that you can be who you are and that ‘who’ is all you can be that you have found home. And while Thérèse was really suggesting that the material world was simply your journey and heaven, or God, is your destination the overall thought is truer than true.

Whether you believe in something bigger than you or simply believe there is something bigger within you, you should seek the stars within you to guide you to it all — not some external place or location which may appear to fulfill some aspect of ‘home.’

Your dreams, wishes and … yes … the starlight to guide you in the darkness of not knowing what to do, where to go and how to get thru whatever it is you are going thru … is all within you.

Your home resides within you.

You are simply looking for a place to … well … place your home that feels right and true. That place is unseen. That place is not really one place <it can actually be many places>.

Here comes the hard part.

Life will not give you any signposts and most of Life will constantly change your direction unseen in the undercurrents of Life.

============

“In the short voyage of a lifetime, we can see the eddies and ripples on the surface, but not the undercurrents changing the main channel of the stream. “

Thomas Mellon

=============

This all suggests you are in control and you are not in control.

Just ponder the fact we often stand upon the deck of our ship admiring the horizon and enjoying the travel & journey only to have some Life undercurrent disrupt our complacency and some version of ‘living Life laziness’ <i.e., if you’re not careful and become actively involved in Life, Life will actively involve itself in your Life>.

This simply reminds us that circumstances beyond our control often disrupt the illusion of what we have, who we are and where we are.

The unseen undercurrent constantly nudges our mind with questions:

What is our purpose?

How can we take control of so many things out of our control?

How do we reconcile the vastness Life offers us … reconcile the bigness that can often appear within reach … and reconcile our desire to be worthy of Life … reconcile it all against the smallness that is us in the roiling sea on which our ship sails?

Will we ever satisfy our dreams for what could be & what we could be?

Meaningful or meaningless?

We struggle with these questions. And all the while we avoid the questions under the guise of “seeking home.’

Ah. Shit.

Suffice it to say, home is not anything physical, it actually resides in the infinite. As a corollary, this would presume if you accept its infiniteness you should be able to see it also has the potential to be infinitely good.

I believe we inherently know this and inherently know that only ‘home’ will truly satisfy us. And that search, that journey, is the satisfaction. I imagine the unfortunate, uncomfortable, truth is the odds are we will never truly find some ‘home’ in which we can live our entire lives.